As long as we ascribe to and obey the human formulated edicts of a supernatural god, the future of humanity will be controlled by those who would use the authority of religion to cloak and finance their institutional, governmental, and personal agendas.
The above, last paragraph of your post, is sound and correct.
The rest is just philosophical noise, especially the following:
A form of authority was needed to provide direction and distinction that allowed child care and protection of family tribal members, but also allowed and encouraged the warfare and destruction of competing human tribes. And indeed that is the history of the development of humanity. This authority was found and codified in the concept of a god(s) that cared for them and was expressed through the god's direction to the tribal leaders.
The ancients did not say that the gods cared for them, they said that the gods were killing their fathers and brothers and were raping their mothers, sisters and wives.
Read mythology… or better forget mythology and read the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, you will know a lot about caring gods.
Actually, it all goes back to the biological basics. If you believe that human beings are a direct supernatural creation in the form of a biological animal by a supernatural creator for the express purpose of venerating that creator, and that that creator in one way or another embedded the urge to establish religions for that purpose, then you need not read any further. However, if you are of the opinion, as am I, that all human beings and their tribal cultures and civilizations at any point in time is the sole result of biological and cultural evolution without the intervention of a supernatural being, then you may have some interest in my thoughts on this.
The essence of existence is survival. If an animal, including humans, does not live to reproduce then everything physical that that organism represents, does not extend into the future. Human beings, along with other primates, also exist in groups; families, tribes, cultures, communities, villages, cities, nations and religious communities, all of which are essentially subsets of the common gene pool of the human species. Survival over time, and the inherent ability to change in physical and cultural characteristics is the key factor in forming the future of any species, or any human culture. Without the injection of a supernatural being that controls the future according to prearranged plan, their is no rational argument that circumvents the flow of our biological existence. However... humans have created ways that modify this law of biological existence that have been in effect through the many thousands of years of human development. When language and then written language came into existence, then for the first time in human history the concepts, imaginings, and historical events of human cultures could be preserved beyond the biological limitations of the human species. And within recent time we have discovered the biological genetic roots of life and the possibility exists for the actual recreation of an extinct species through manipulation and cloning of the preserved genetic codes of species long gone from the stage of earthly life.
It seems that the human species has always been able to exist cooperatively in numbers and assist each other in the processes of life and living, thus survival of the group. It also seems that the human species has had little problem with the total annihilation of the life and culture of other human groups that were/are in competition for living space and natural resources that were/are critical for survival of their group.
In my opinion, the foundation human survival is the emotions of love and compassion. And the foundation of compassion stems from the behavior that evolved to nurture, protect and thereby insure the survival of infants born to vertebrate species that depend on long gestation times and a long period of juvenile development. (Behavior that is quite evident in many vertebrate species in the world today.) Without care and protection of the few progeny requiring a long infancy, a species could not survive. This compassion is also reflected in strong family ties and as humanity evolved, extension of compassionate behavior to members of the extended family expanded into a cooperative tribal community. Those early proto human tribes that could express compassion and protection to the extended family group could best survive and grow through cooperation, and through cooperation, could develop the behavior and the concomitant physical and behavioral specializations that enhanced attainment of divergent life supporting behaviors; such as child care, food preparation, hunting animals, and very important, defense of the tribe and the ability to exert warfare against competing tribes. Biological and cultural evolution directed by environmental changes over deep time formed the modern human species.
There had to have been quite a conflict between the essential emotional behavior of compassion for children and family/tribal members; and the necessity of being able to reject and kill members of other families/tribes that were in competition for the essential resources of food, territory, water, shelter, and other requirements for survival. A form of authority was needed to provide direction and distinction that allowed child care and protection of family tribal members, but also allowed and encouraged the warfare and destruction of competing human tribes. And indeed that is the history of the development of humanity. This authority was found and codified in the concept of a god(s) that cared for them and was expressed through the god's direction to the tribal leaders. Now by the authority of a supernatural all powerful being, his chosen people could exercise the necessary compassion within the tribe to enhance survival; and in direct opposition to this essential inherent behavior, express the also inherent behaviors of predation and aggression against other tribes, and this enhanced their survival at the expense of others of their species. Thus the concept and exercise of what became religion made growth of what we call civilization possible. Group and individual morality is defined by the survival needs of the tribe, implemented through the window of religion, which is opened by the shamans, witch doctors, priests, clerics, preachers, and pontiffs of the tribes. So morality is not an absolute decree by a loving and/or hateful god; it is a pragmatic bending of ancient behavioral patterns into a universal societal conviction that allows that society to do what it deems necessary for the leaders of that society to dominate and prosper. (Religions live and die at the hand of man, i.e, Paul the Apostle, Henry VIII and the Church of England, the Catholic and Orthodox churches, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, and L. Ron Hubbard, to name a few.)
As long as we ascribe to and obey the human formulated edicts of a supernatural god, the future of humanity will be controlled by those who would use the authority of religion to cloak and finance their institutional, governmental, and personal agendas.
Moe, this post is too damn long. Otherwise, aside from some potential nit-picking, I agree with your analysis. I appreciate your clarity of thought.
As long as we ascribe to and obey the human formulated edicts of a supernatural god, the future of humanity will be controlled by those who would use the authority of religion to cloak and finance their institutional, governmental, and personal agendas.
The above, last paragraph of your post, is sound and correct.
The rest is just philosophical noise, especially the following:
A form of authority was needed to provide direction and distinction that allowed child care and protection of family tribal members, but also allowed and encouraged the warfare and destruction of competing human tribes. And indeed that is the history of the development of humanity. This authority was found and codified in the concept of a god(s) that cared for them and was expressed through the god's direction to the tribal leaders.
The ancients did not say that the gods cared for them, they said that the gods were killing their fathers and brothers and were raping their mothers, sisters and wives.
Read mythology… or better forget mythology and read the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, you will know a lot about caring gods.
On a per capita basis, I would guess that the killing of fathers and brothers and the raping of mothers, sisters and wives was a relatively common occurrence, in ancient times. So of course, their stories (their narratives, their fictions purported to represent some "holy truth") would reflect that.
So Dimitrios, what was your reasoning behind people blindly believing the theologians and priests?
If I insulted humanity by insisting they worshiped the sun( for lack of any other gods put forth)
aren't you insulting humanity even more by insisting that these people believed morons who were telling them the sun was a god?
After all on the face of it, worshiping the sun "naturally" so to speak is far more endearing(and plausible!) than explaining the people thought the sun was a god because other people told them it was.
Besides that, what the heck do you think people thought the Sun was before priests told them it was a god?
40,000 years ago. 60,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago?
I recall a story about a modern day anthropologist who was investigating a remote, isolated, primitive tribe of people. He observed them performing some sort of ritual at sunrise. He assumed that they were worshipping the sun. When he asked them about it, they laughed at the idea. Instead, they explained that it was the rising of the sunthat they were responding to. (make of that what you will.)
But to your other point, here, YES, the origins of religion, must necessarily pre-date the history of religion. e.g., before there was writing, there were oral traditions in which religious narratives were passed on. And before religious ideas and narratives were formally committed to memory and passed on, they, no doubt existed in a less coherent hodgepodge.
So Dimitrios, what was your reasoning behind people blindly believing the theologians and priests?
If I insulted humanity by insisting they worshiped the sun( for lack of any other gods put forth)
aren't you insulting humanity even more by insisting that these people believed morons who were telling them the sun was a god?
People are fed mental rubbish while still kids. People can be made to believe anything, but as grownups they do not produce idiotic concepts of the sort of the heavenly immaterial gods.
The ancient Celts would lend money on a promissory note for repayment in the next world. That means that they would sell their house agreeing to collect in the other world so that they could buy a house there. How did it happen and they came to believe something so absurd? There is a story behind that belief as it is a story behind the belief in immaterial gods.
After all on the face of it, worshiping the sun "naturally" so to speak is far more endearing(and plausible!) than explaining the people thought the sun was a god because other people told them it was.
OK, I am going to tell you a story now.
I am a retired Master Mariner and while a Third Mate I was part of a crew that was sent to Japan to take delivery of a brand new super tanker. On sailing, a Japanese superintendent engineer came along to monitor the engines.
Every afternoon I had to go to the bridge to relieve the Chief Mate so that he could go for his dinner. At the time that the setting sun was touching the horizon, the Japanese was on the bridge, facing the sun and slightly bowing while he was whispering something.
I have been an atheist by birth, yet his behavior was touching. I do not know whether he was regarding the sun as a god, but he was acting as if he was thanking that thing in the sky providing light and warmth; and that answers your next question:
Besides that, what the heck do you think people thought the Sun was before priests told them it was a god?
40,000 years ago. 60,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago?
The concept of gods (the God concept came much later) had to somehow be produced in a society that the god idea did not obtain. That means that we may not say “they deified the sun, the moon, or the lighting". For the ancients the gods were common people and to say that they believed that a common man was on the clouds sending down thunder and lightning, is ridiculous.
How the gods’ concept was produced? It is written in the texts: the children of an archaic generation were told that the old kings climbed a ladder each and went to live in the sky. From there on the theologians took over, with the result today’s humans to be able to understand the term “god" only as denoting a superhuman being.
Excellent question VYAZMA. It either should have got him to see the flaw in his reasoning, or shown the rest of us that he doesn't know what he is talking about and can't see beyond his narrow theory and will continue to refuse to answer questions directly. Instead he will keep saying things like, "It is written...".
Excellent question VYAZMA. It either should have got him to see the flaw in his reasoning, or shown the rest of us that he doesn't know what he is talking about and can't see beyond his narrow theory and will continue to refuse to answer questions directly. Instead he will keep saying things like, "It is written...".
Well that's it. It's a narrow thing he's got going on here. There's good stuff in it and there's some other stuff that's quirky.
It doesn't help that he's taken on the role of some of the Midnight Riders that come through here.
He seems like an interesting enough guy perhaps but he's putting up that usual wacky wall like some other itinerants around here.
Nobody can nail down a starting point with him. A jumping off point for discourse.
I recall a story about a modern day anthropologist who was investigating a remote, isolated, primitive tribe of people. He observed them performing some sort of ritual at sunrise. He assumed that they were worshipping the sun. When he asked them about it, they laughed at the idea. Instead, they explained that it was the rising of the sunthat they were responding to. (make of that what you will.)
Like Carlin said, if you're gonna worship something it may as well be the sun.
1. It's real-we can see it.
2. it provides light
3. it provides warmth
4. actually it provides everything.
And you are an arrtogant fool if you are calling Mathematics a god.
Mathematics is a *function of universal spacetime.*
It was you who wrote: I am an atheist who believes in meta-physics, I believe in a Mathematical Universe. You thus presented a parallelism between the creator God and the… Mathematical Universe. We are not discussing astrophysics here, so what is this nonsense about the mathematical universe. If you are an atheist you only have to state “I know there is no God", but you cannot say that because you are a common agnostic. Moreover, any theologian would tell you that the God is the one who created your silly mathematical universe. I just cannot let this pass. You don't even know the difference between meta-physics (an assembly of *known* mathematical constants) and spiritualism (the assembly of mythologies about "unknown" causes of events). And I just came from a lengthy discourse about the flawed spiritual assertion of "Intelligent Design* (ID).
Of course it was, but to call Plato a scumbag tells me more about you than you will ever know about me.
We, Greek atheists, hate the guts of that scumbag Plato because we’ve read his work. Have you?
As I said, you know nothing about me. But your disdain for my thoughts is obvious and that makes you the prejudicial one.
As we should because they were ignorant goat herders. And you are seriously deluded if you think they had it right..
goat herders!!
So you are a racist on top of being an ignoramus! The “G" God concept belongs to ancient Egyptians. The Tanakh, the book that the… goat herders wrote, describes the God to be a scumbag of the caliber of Plato, but having got an ape’s mind burdened with the mathematics of the mathematical universe you certainly could do no better.
So?
But your disrespect of not reading and learning something about the history of the emergence (origins) of gods into the human society, speaks of ignorance and vanity.
Present the evidence and then we can talk
I have, but by your own admission , you refuse to read it. Play by the rules man., Before you criticize me, at least *hear* (my argument) and try to *understand* (what I am saying).
As an atheist I care less about the history of religion which has been proved false so many times that to equate that with some kind of serious area of inquiry is absurd. I say God does not exist and you insist that I do as if you have all the answers.
To be an atheist you have to prove that God does not exist and, that, you can only do through the knowledge of the history of religion, which enables one to show that the God idea is a monumental hoax based on an archaic joke.
Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.... read the links I provided.
If you cannot present an viable alternative to the mathematical function of everything, you have no standing here at all.
Who gives a sh*t about your mathematical function of everything? We are discussing the origins of religion here.
Yes we are , except for the fact that you are not *listening*.
Obviously you know nothing about physics, or you would understand that mathematics is the antithesis to god and religions. No intent, only function. If you don't know the difference then you are the new age ignorant fool, who refuses to learn anything real about the universe, instead of trying to rewrite the history of religious practices, which has no scientific value at all.
I suggest that you see someone about your obsession with the mathematically functioning universe; and it is not about the history of religious practices but about the history of religion, meaning the story of how humans came to believe in the God who created the mathematically functioning universe
Oh, I have . I saw Max Tegmark's hypothesis. Have you?
But if you so easily dismiss the time I spent on research, you are not worthy of my attention. Good bye and try to be well.
Research on the… mathematically behaving universe, I guess. :roll:
Precisely, the quest for an objectively acceptable explanation of the one common denominator (the essence) of existence of any kind.
One of these abstract concepts is a hierarchy of mathematical functions, instead of "tales told in the past". A meta-physical mathematical order. Functional *common denominators* of everything.
Another is the abstract concepts of a hierarchy of spiritual beings, instead of "current knowledge at that time". A ruling religious *mirror* order.
I recall a story about a modern day anthropologist who was investigating a remote, isolated, primitive tribe of people. He observed them performing some sort of ritual at sunrise. He assumed that they were worshipping the sun. When he asked them about it, they laughed at the idea. Instead, they explained that it was the rising of the sunthat they were responding to. (make of that what you will.)
Like Carlin said, if you're gonna worship something it may as well be the sun.
1. It's real-we can see it.
2. it provides light
3. it provides warmth
4. actually it provides everything.
5. It's the father
6. Earth is the mother
7. When the Sun (the father) *penetrated* the Earth (the mother), life began to form. Conditions were just right.
Actually, it all goes back to the biological basics. If you believe that human beings are a direct supernatural creation in the form of a biological animal by a supernatural creator for the express purpose of venerating that creator, and that that creator in one way or another embedded the urge to establish religions for that purpose, then you need not read any further. However, if you are of the opinion, as am I, that all human beings and their tribal cultures and civilizations at any point in time is the sole result of biological and cultural evolution without the intervention of a supernatural being, then you may have some interest in my thoughts on this.
As long as we ascribe to and obey the human formulated edicts of a supernatural god, the future of humanity will be controlled by those who would use the authority of religion to cloak and finance their institutional, governmental, and personal agendas.
So Dimitrios, what was your reasoning behind people blindly believing the theologians and priests?
If I insulted humanity by insisting they worshiped the sun( for lack of any other gods put forth)
aren't you insulting humanity even more by insisting that these people believed morons who were telling them the sun was a god?
After all on the face of it, worshiping the sun "naturally" so to speak is far more endearing(and plausible!) than explaining the people thought the sun was a god because other people told them it was.
Besides that, what the heck do you think people thought the Sun was before priests told them it was a god?
40,000 years ago. 60,000 years ago? 10,000 years ago?
As far as the sun. My understanding is that you are talking about RA from Egypt. The levels of heaven come into play here. The sun was the heaven for the pharaohs. The pharaohs were the gods in the sun, remember gods lived forever. The sun only provide light. In Egypt, knowledge was controlled by the gods (pharaohs). The brain was never seen as having any use or value. Knowledge was kept in the heart. You prayed to gods in the sun, and they may send you knowledge by sunlight. Shadows were the evil, so light was good and kept the evil away. Knowledge traveled by sunlight to your eyes, then traveled to your heart.
Jesus said “I am the light of the world". Jesus was saying he was the teacher, not a god. Replace “light" with “knowledge" to understand his meaning. Jesus spoke to two groups of people with different thoughts on how people were able to think. One was using the brain, the other was using the heart.
“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."
“While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."
As you can see, Jesus was very Gnostic.
Point being, to answer your question, {So Dimitrios, what was your reasoning behind people blindly believing the theologians and priests?} It was the knowledge that the priests had. The one common factor that all main religious gods had was control of some sort of knowledge. This is my guess.
As long as we ascribe to and obey the human formulated edicts of a supernatural god, the future of humanity will be controlled by those who would use the authority of religion to cloak and finance their institutional, governmental, and personal agendas.
The above, last paragraph of your post, is sound and correct.
The rest is just philosophical noise, especially the following:
A form of authority was needed to provide direction and distinction that allowed child care and protection of family tribal members, but also allowed and encouraged the warfare and destruction of competing human tribes. And indeed that is the history of the development of humanity. This authority was found and codified in the concept of a god(s) that cared for them and was expressed through the god's direction to the tribal leaders.
The ancients did not say that the gods cared for them, they said that the gods were killing their fathers and brothers and were raping their mothers, sisters and wives.
Read mythology… or better forget mythology and read the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, you will know a lot about caring gods.
On a per capita basis, I would guess that the killing of fathers and brothers and the raping of mothers, sisters and wives was a relatively common occurrence, in ancient times. So of course, their stories (their narratives, their fictions purported to represent some "holy truth") would reflect that.
Babylonian Law--The Code of Hammurabi does not reflect that behavior in the citizens. But the old texts of the gods was like a big soap opera, and just like our TV shows today, they kept the action moving. The gods were the TV stars of the time.
Gods started off as stars and animals and then became part animal and part human.
All opinions are respected provided that they are based on some evidence. Your opinion is based on a study of yours or on someone else’s work?
My views are a layman's not an academic. I am working with pieces of the puzzle by many and trying to form a logical picture of the past.
The gods of Egypt are a good example of gods evolving. The oldest god we know of is the bull.
But we find no proof of gods in the early religions.
Then they were not religions.
We still have religions today without gods and they don't seem to be having the kind of trouble the deity religions are having.
These are silly philosophies, not religions. Buddhism is a godless religion based on the gods of Hindism with Buddha as God. Ridiculous!
I disagree.
Reason is that if you have heavens and the Holy Spirit, along with afterlife and you are reborn. That would be considered religion.
The IRS has ruled that Atheism can be considered a religion.
It helps me to work with timelines. We have the Age of Domestication and then the Age of Deities. Both have religions and gods. But in the Age of Domestication gods were a people or tribe. Entirely different meanings of “Gods".
As regards the location, where do you base your assertion that they lived in India?
The way the story of the gods was dispersed proves that the land where they lived is the land from where Eurasians spread towards the East and the West: the Near East.
The Vega’s are from India. The Garden of Eden is in India. Most of all the domestication took place in India. The language came from India. The money commonly used by the countries of the time came from India. The center of knowledge was in India. Meaning the first colleges were India.
If we go back to Mt. Toba eruption in 71K/74K BC that cause only 500 to 5,000 people with our DNA to be on earth. We have the earth in a cold part of the climate cycle. Then an Ice Age by the eruption. There were very limited areas for mankind on earth at that time. We do have Red Ochre burials taking place before the population was on the global extinction list. And all indications are that the main population came from India. Before the extinction period it was out of Africa to the East.
Next we have the creation of man. The UV theory has now been proven invalid. And DNA has the white skin people showing up on earth 8K ago from just over the hill from India.
That giant quote you posted was from an anthropologist.
Have you read the The Golden Bough]?
What I quoted was reports from eye witnesses watching the practices and customs mentioned.
Frazer copy-pasted those reports to his book. His ideas as an anthropologist were naïve and even silly.
The scholars involved with the history of religion are historians, archaeologists and archaic and ancient texts' translators. Psychologists, shrinks, and anthropologists have to do with modern humans. Paleoanthropologists do not care about religion, they care about genetics and fossils.
You're going from a little bit annoying to completely wacko. If you're going to take everything people say and answer with , "no, not that, nu-uh, not what I meant, nope, you're wrong", don't expect much in return.
Prove to me that you are religiously educated by stating the books you have read, and then you can pronounce a critique on me.
How can the hypothesis of who wrote the Bible and why, NOT tell us about a major event in the history of religion?
I wrote: The Documentary Hypothesis offers a starting point for anyone interested to have some insight into religious matters but has nothing to tell about the history of religion or why people believe what they believe.
The Documentary Hypothesis will not tell you why the particular writer wrote the story about God attacking Moses to kill him (Ex. 4:24-26). One has to know the older texts by heart in order to understand the intention of the writer and the same happens with many other “crazy" stories of the Tanakh.
5. It's the father
6. Earth is the mother
7. When the Sun (the father) *penetrated* the Earth (the mother), life began to form. Conditions were just right.
Write4U, FWIW, I don't hold those views. I was only misquoting Carlin there.
I don't have a problem with your symbolism but I don't personally flesh out the Universe in these terms.
On a per capita basis, I would guess that the killing of fathers and brothers and the raping of mothers, sisters and wives was a relatively common occurrence, in ancient times. So of course, their stories (their narratives, their fictions purported to represent some "holy truth") would reflect that.
He mentioned caring gods because it is hard to justify imagining criminal gods.
According to your opinion, however, they imagined criminal gods to reflect reality and human behavior, but you overlooked the fact that the killings and the rapings were taking place on earth, not high up in the sky. So, according to you, all ancient people were schizophrenic for reporting that they had been watching gods killing and raping.
5. It's the father
6. Earth is the mother
7. When the Sun (the father) *penetrated* the Earth (the mother), life began to form. Conditions were just right.
Write4U, FWIW, I don't hold those views. I was only misquoting Carlin there.
I don't have a problem with your symbolism but I don't personally flesh out the Universe in these terms.
Yes, it was gratuitous, more like a *variations on a theme*.